But I would suggest that the current rationalist claim is "reason and empiricism tell us the most reasonable thing to believe at a given moment" and is almost a-priori true. This is not to claim it is the final truth or that following it will be catastrophe free: The polio vaccine will fail sometimes. But it is better than any non-rational non-fact based alternative.
The old claim "reason leads to ultimate truth" is difficult for a number of reasons. One relates to the ultimate know-ability of reality through our senses. Another is the almost absurd level of over confidence in a given theory.
I would also contest the claim that we are more violent and barbaric now than in the past. I believe that is factually incorrect or at least controversial. At any rate, science could be accused of the technical advances that make killing more efficient but not of starting wars or worsening the base instincts and gullibility that underlying the causes of cruelty and barbarism.
And I would point out one significant social change reason did bring about. Rationality requires judging people by relevant criterion rather than irrelevant criterion. This leads, after apparently continuous struggle, to increased racial, ethnic etc tolerance.
I think we should also distinguish between genuine rational-empiricism and pseudo-science. For example, many of the worst atrocities in the 20th century were justified through a knowingly false and twisted reading of Darwin. These are not rational ideas, they are, in fact, irrational ideas cloaking themselves in an undeserved respectability.
I think we should also make another more subtle distinction. There are those who have a preconceived notion and then, through omissions, intentional or otherwise, argue eloquently for it. This contrasts with being genuinely curious and following the facts and thinking where-ever they lead without prejudice. The former is obviously not going to lead to usable reality based ideas.
GK Chesterton makes the good point that rigorous rationalism is only valid if you start from true premises. Regardless of how valid one's syllogisms are, if they are based on false premises, then you'll end up insane. That is why GKE insists the insane man tends to be the most consistently rational, but starting from incorrect premises. The notion of "mystery" is that we can apprehend truths that are not always within our ability to rationally dissect, but that does not mean these truths are at odds with what we also rationally understand. A prime example is consciousness. There is no coherent rational explanation of consciousness within our physicalist worldview, since consciousness must be inherently non physical. Hence when rational physicalists try to take their viewpoint to its logical conclusion they must make the incoherent claim, as Daniel Dennett does, that consciousness is an "illusion." If consciousness is an illusion, then what is having the illusion? The self contradiction is because illusion itself presupposes a consciousness that be deceived.
> GK Chesterton makes the good point that rigorous rationalism is only valid if you start from true premises.
Rationalism permits us to examine even our premises, so your conclusion doesn't follow.
> Hence when rational physicalists try to take their viewpoint to its logical conclusion they must make the incoherent claim, as Daniel Dennett does, that consciousness is an "illusion."
Oh boy.
> If consciousness is an illusion, then what is having the illusion? The self contradiction is because illusion itself presupposes a consciousness that be deceived.
No, the "self-contradiction" is that you seem to think an illusion requires a subject. "What" is having the illusion is the system that mistakenly concludes that its perceptions entail consciousness.
Here's a subject-free definition of "illusion" so you don't fall into this trap again: an illusion is a perception that entails an obvious/immediate, but false, conclusion.
subjectivity is subjective. its axiomatic. no one argues that everything is reducible or reductive. ever heard of the explanatory gap? no, we have axioms, which are self-evident, that subsequent truths are based on. axioms are the epistemic grounds of reason, and consciousness is the epistemic ground of all knowledge and experience. no consciousness - no knowledge. and just because we can't prove it objectively doesn't mean it doesn't exist! how absurd!
Dennett's arguments are not taken seriously in many academic philosophical circles. There is a joke about the title of his book, ever so humbly titled "Consciousness Explained", that is should be retitled: "Consciousness Explained Away".
If that means nothing to you, then I suggest you read some more philosophy of mind to understand why subjectivity is a real problem for eliminativist theories.
> consciousness is the epistemic ground of all knowledge and experience
Fortunately not!
> Dennett's arguments are not taken seriously in many academic philosophical circles.
Haha, I don't know what bubble you live in, but the majority of philosophers are physicalists. See the survey done a few years ago:
In fact, nearly every single one of Dennett's positions are held by the majority of philosophers, ie. physicalism, Compatibilism, realism. So much for Dennett not being taken seriously.
> I would also contest the claim that we are more violent and barbaric now than in the past. I believe that is factually incorrect or at least controversial. At any rate, science could be accused of the technical advances that make killing more efficient but not of starting wars or worsening the base instincts and gullibility that underlying the causes of cruelty and barbarism.
One of the core beliefs of modern society is that cruelty and barbarism spring from base instincts and not from the pattern of thinking inherent in the structure of that society, but this is at best an open question as far as anthropological data on early hunter-gatherers is concerned. See the work of Brian Ferguson for example.
The claim of barbarism and violence is actually based on Adorno's very deep connection to what he continually refers to as "Auschwitz", to the point where he'll even describe the world as a post-Auschwitz world. In his lectures (published 1964) he also mentions the atom bomb. As a German Jewish emigrant to the U.S., the question of Nazi Germany had a huge effect on him and his beliefs - in particular this Hegelian notion of history moving to ever higher stages of freedom in a linear fashion. The existence of the Nazis at such a scale could not be explained as simply an aberration - the Frankfurt School was born out of this struggle to find out what went wrong and what is going wrong with both Hegel's thesis and Marx's thesis.
But I would suggest that the current rationalist claim is "reason and empiricism tell us the most reasonable thing to believe at a given moment" and is almost a-priori true. This is not to claim it is the final truth or that following it will be catastrophe free: The polio vaccine will fail sometimes. But it is better than any non-rational non-fact based alternative.
The old claim "reason leads to ultimate truth" is difficult for a number of reasons. One relates to the ultimate know-ability of reality through our senses. Another is the almost absurd level of over confidence in a given theory.
I would also contest the claim that we are more violent and barbaric now than in the past. I believe that is factually incorrect or at least controversial. At any rate, science could be accused of the technical advances that make killing more efficient but not of starting wars or worsening the base instincts and gullibility that underlying the causes of cruelty and barbarism.
And I would point out one significant social change reason did bring about. Rationality requires judging people by relevant criterion rather than irrelevant criterion. This leads, after apparently continuous struggle, to increased racial, ethnic etc tolerance.
I think we should also distinguish between genuine rational-empiricism and pseudo-science. For example, many of the worst atrocities in the 20th century were justified through a knowingly false and twisted reading of Darwin. These are not rational ideas, they are, in fact, irrational ideas cloaking themselves in an undeserved respectability.
I think we should also make another more subtle distinction. There are those who have a preconceived notion and then, through omissions, intentional or otherwise, argue eloquently for it. This contrasts with being genuinely curious and following the facts and thinking where-ever they lead without prejudice. The former is obviously not going to lead to usable reality based ideas.